Cummings v. State
166 So. 2d 775
Opinion
Appellant’s motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule. No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, denial of which is here appealed, sought to vacate sentences entered in Orange County which would “run consecutive to” sentences imposed in Volusia County. Accordingly, it is apparent on the face of the motion that relief under Rule No. 1 is not presently available, the motion was properly denied and the denial is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cummings v. State, 166 So. 2d 775 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).
166 So. 2d 775 (Cummings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Escue v. State
192 So. 2d 524 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Ervin v. State
189 So. 2d 374 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Jones v. State
174 So. 2d 452 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)